Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

1. This review concerns a decision made by Services Australia (Child Support) on 5 December 2024 to refuse Mr Grabian an extension of time to object to a decision made on 30 March 2022. Mr Grabian was the paying parent in a child support assessment (the assessment) for two children, [named], who were in the above primary care of the other parent.
2. Based on Child Support records, on 30 March 2022, Mr Grabian's 2020/21 adjusted taxable income (ATI) of $0 was applied to the assessment for the period 1 September 2021 to 31 July 2022. Prior to this, the assessment for that period was based on a provisional income amount of $65,577. As a result of this decision, Mr Grabian's child support liability for the period decreased, reducing an existing arrears amount.
3. On 10 July 2022 Child Support wrote to Mr Grabian and advised that the child support period had ended, and that a new assessment period would commence from 1 August 2022. Child Support used a provisional ATI based on the 2020/21 income of $0. However, Child Support applied a fixed annual rate of child support to the assessment. This increased his weekly child support liability from $56.61 to $58.30.
4. On 5 December 2022, Child Support was advised by the Australian Taxation Office of Mr Grabian's ATI for 2021/2022 of $19,338. This was applied to the assessment, but did not change the rate of child support, as the fixed annual rate continued.
5. Various other assessments have been made since that time, and Mr Grabian's income increased when he commenced employment as [an occupation 1] in July 2023.
6. On 5 November 2024 Mr Grabian lodged a written objection to the decision of 15 November 2022, with an application to extend the time allowed for an objection to be accepted. He stated that his income was assessed at $19,338 in the 2021/22 financial year and that he could not afford the payments.
7. On 5 December 2024, Child Support declined to extend the time period for lodgement of the objection to the decision of 30 March 2022.
8. Mr Grabian sought a review of this decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal on 6 December 2024.
9. Mr Grabian participated in a video hearing on 14 March 2025 and gave oral evidence. Other evidence before the Tribunal was in the hearing papers containing material provided by Child Support (88 pages).
10. At the hearing the Tribunal noted the discrepancy between his application to object to the decision of 15 November 2022 and Child Support's reference to the decision of 30 March 2022 and asked him which decision he wished to object to. Mr Grabian said that the issue for him was that he had no income in 2020/21 and that this should have been reflected in any child support assessment which used that year's ATI. On this basis it appeared that the decision of 30 March 2022 was the relevant decision to which he wished to object.

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Act) and the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act).
2. The issue which arises in this case is whether Mr Grabian should be granted an extension of time to lodge his objection to the decision made by Child Support on 30 March 2022.

1. Subsection 80(1) of the Act provides that a person may lodge an objection in writing in relation to specified decisions made by Child Support. Section 81 of the Act provides that a person must lodge an objection to such a decision within 28 days after a notice of the decision is served on them.
2. Section 82 of the Act provides that beyond the 28-day period, a person may submit an objection along with an application for an extension of time, requesting Child Support to treat the objection as having been duly lodged. The application must state fully and in detail the grounds of the application, including the circumstances concerning, and the reasons for, the failure by the person to lodge the objection within time.
3. Child Support must consider and either grant or refuse the application for an extension of time. If the application is granted, then the person is taken to have lodged the objection (section 83 of the Act). If the application for an extension of time is not granted, a person may apply to this Tribunal for review of a decision on an application for an extension of time (section 89 of the Act).
4. Notice of a decision may be served pursuant to the provisions of child support legislation. This includes sending the notice by prepaid post to that person's address for service. Unless the contrary is proven, then services by prepaid post are taken to have come into effect at the time when the notice would, in the ordinary course of post, have arrived at the address. Where a person has consented to receiving a notice electronically, then service includes delivery of the notice electronically.

Did Mr Grabian make his objection outside the 28-day period?

1. Based on the documents provided by Child Support, Mr Grabian was sent a letter dated 30 March 2022 to the address on his record at the time. These letters advised him of the decision regarding the changes to the assessment, and informed him of his right to object to this decision, within 28 days.
2. Mr Grabian said that he has no recollection of receiving any mail from Child Support for some years. His understanding was that correspondence was sent to him via myGov. He acknowledged that he did not access myGov to check for correspondence during the relevant period, and that he did not read the letters he was sent. He confirmed that he did not make a written objection to the decision about his assessed rate of child support until 5 November 2024.

1. As the objection was lodged outside the 28 days referred to in section 81 of the Act, the Registrar was required to consider the application for an extension of time, and either grant or refuse the application within 60 days and give written notice of this decision. A failure to make a decision within this timeframe is taken to be a refusal of the application, giving rise to review rights in this Tribunal.
2. The Act does not specify the criteria on which the Registrar (or the Tribunal) should exercise the discretion whether or not to grant an extension of time. A number of decisions provide guidance in determining this issue.
3. In Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen [1984] FCA 176 (Hunter Valley Developments), the Federal Court identified principles (at [18-23]) to be considered in relation to applications for extensions of time. In that case the Court was considering an application for an extension of time to apply for an order of review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The principles articulated by the Federal Court were substantially repeated in the case of Re Mulheron and Australian Telecommunications Corporation [1991] AATA 673 (Mulheron). In the case of Saxena & Child Support Registrar & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 1416, the Court stated that the Tribunal, "properly proceeded" by considering the factors in Mulheron when reviewing a decision of the Registrar to refuse an extension of time to object to a decision. The factors are a guide, and not a prescriptive list. Section 4.1.5 of the Child Support Guide (the Guide) sets out the factors that the Registrar will consider in determining whether to grant or refuse an application for an extension of time, and these are substantially the same as the principles identified in Hunter Valley Developments.
4. In Hunter Valley Developments, the Federal Court said that in general, applications or proceedings commenced outside of a prescribed time limit will not be considered. Where there is scope to extend this timeframe, the Court said that there must be an acceptable explanation for the delay and that it must be fair and equitable in the circumstances to extend time. The Federal Court identified six factors to take into account when deciding whether to grant an extension of time.
5. At 4.1.5, the Guide articulates these factors as follows:
   • reasons for delay
   • whether the parent rested on their rights
   • the merits of the objection
   • any prejudice to the other parent, and
   • prejudice to the general public.
6. The Tribunal is not bound to follow the policy articulated in the Guide, but will do so if it is consistent with the legal principles. On this basis, the Tribunal has taken these factors into account in determining whether the extension of time should be granted in this case.

Reasons for delay and whether Mr Grabian rested on his rights

1. In his application for review Mr Grabian said that although he had a myGov account, at the time he was not familiar with how to use it. He was not aware of the decision and not aware that he was expected to pay child support in the period. He confirmed that he had set up the myGov account, but that it was mostly for the ATO and Medicare and he didn't look at it much anyway. It was not until 2024 that he started to look at it and realised how much child support he owed. This prompted him to go back over past correspondence and realise he was being assessed to pay child support for a period when he had no income of his own, which didn't seem fair. This led to his objection.
2. The Tribunal noted a file record from January 2024 when he called to query the situation. The file note records that he disputed the 2021/22 ATI provided by the ATO and was advised to follow this up with the ATO.
3. The Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Grabian has provided an acceptable explanation for the very significant delay in lodging his objection and extension-of-time request for the 30 March 2022 decision. His explanation that he is unfamiliar with myGov does not explain why he did not respond in any way to the letters that were sent to him, which included information about the objection process. The Tribunal considers that he "rested on his rights".

1. As detailed in the letter of 30 March 2022, the decision to which Mr Grabian wishes to object was the decision to apply his 2020/21 ATI of $0 to the assessment, in place of the provisional ATI of $65,577 based on his 2019/20 ATI for the period 1 September 2021 to 31 July 2022.
2. Section 56 of the Assessment Act provides that if it is available, a parent's taxable income for the last relevant year of income will be used for the purposes of assessing the child support liability for a period.
3. Section 58 of the Assessment Act provides that where a parent's taxable income for the last relevant year of income is not available or the Registrar is unable to ascertain whether it is available, the Registrar may determine a specified amount be used to calculate the assessment if satisfied that it is a "reasonable approximation" of the parent's income. At the start of the relevant child support period (1 September 2021), there was no taxable income figure available for Mr Grabian for the 2020/21 financial year and the Registrar determined a "provisional income" based on Mr Grabian's 2019/20 ATI.
4. Section 58A provides that the Registrar must immediately amend an administrative assessment if the tax assessment becomes available and is different to the administrative assessment. This is what happened in Mr Grabian's case - once his 2020/21 tax return became available in March 2022, and the ATO assessment income of $0 was applied to the assessment from the start of the period, it reduced his annual liability to $246.17 per month.
5. Mr Grabian's objection to this decision is that he did not believe that he should have had to pay this much child support when he had no income of his own. He told the Tribunal that he was financially supported by his wife, and although he continued to work [at another job], he only covered his costs. He did not pay child support and could not afford to.
6. In DHLD and Executive Director, Social Security Appeals Tribunal [2010] AATA 377, the Tribunal, reviewing a decision of a delegate of the SSAT Principal Member on an extension application, said of the consideration of the merits of the application for review:

... it is not the occasion on which to embark upon a detailed consideration of the evidence and the merits. The question that must be asked is whether the applicant on the extension application has an arguable case. If, at a substantive hearing, that applicant were able to produce evidence to establish the facts he or she put forward on the extension application, would he or she have an arguable case having regard to the facts put forward and the law against which those facts must be considered? (at [53])

1. On this basis, the Tribunal needs to consider whether there is potentially some merit to the arguments put forward by Mr Grabian. As the application of his ATO-assessed income for 2020/21 to the assessment under section 58A was not a matter about which there was any discretion, the Tribunal does not consider that Mr Grabian would have an arguable case if his objection was considered. Mr Grabian could have made an application to change the assessment if he believed there were grounds to do so. That is different to objecting to the decision of 30 March 2022.

1. Section 4.1.5 of the Guide states that the Registrar will consider whether "the outcome of a successful objection would create an overpayment or significant arrears of child support". If Mr Grabian's objection was successful, there would be no change to the child support liability for the relevant period.
2. The other parent is not a party to these proceedings, is most likely unaware of these proceedings, and has had no opportunity to participate or put her views forward. Any consideration of prejudice to her can only be based on speculation. However, it would be difficult to conceive of a situation where a person is not prejudiced by permitting the reconsideration of a decision relating to a period more than three years prior, which was not caused in any way by their own actions, and which they had no opportunity to contest. The Tribunal considers that after three years, the other parent is entitled to believe that the child support for the relevant period has been correctly calculated, even though it has not been paid to her. The Tribunal considers that there could be prejudice to the other parent if an extension of time were allowed.

1. This represents two factors identified in Hunter Valley Developments, as "A delay which may result, if the application is successful, in the unsettling of other people or of established practices is likely to prove fatal to the application" (at [21]) and that "Considerations of fairness between the applicants and other persons otherwise in a like position are relevant".
2. Mr Grabian submitted that the community might expect that objections could be made at any time during the period to which an assessment applies. Whether or not this was the case, it would not have assisted him as the objection he has sought to make was made more than two years after the decision, well beyond the period of the assessment.
3. The Tribunal considers that the community expectation is that government administration is conducted in a timely way, with regard to established principles and practices. From this standpoint, to allow an extension of time for close to around 18 months in circumstances where the person repeatedly failed to act on advice regarding the requirements to lodge a valid objection, would clearly "unsettle" established practices and principles, and be unfair to others who are expected to comply with these timeframes.

1. The Tribunal considered that Mr Grabian's explanation for delay in making an objection, the merits of his objection as well as the likely prejudice to the other parent, and the community as a whole, are matters which, in combination, mean that the discretion to allow an extension of time to object to the decision of 30 March 2022, should not be granted.